Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigRedBuster

Should we be surprised?

Recommended Posts

dudeguyy    3,490

Good lord, how horrifying for that pastor. My heart aches for him and his wife.

 

I made a handy flowchart for everyone to understand how our brave government officials will respond:

 

LqAVGC9.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080

Would be really interested to know why this happened. Also find it interesting the pastor and wife were out of town when this happened though likely that is purely coincidence. Read the Shooter was in the air force until 2013 then went on to teach a summer Bible camp? Alot to piece together right now, hopefully we can get a clear picture even though the shooter is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
commando    1,626

the republicans and fox news know how to stop this....take your guns to church to fight back when people with assault rifles attack your church!!!   1 face palm is not enough :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080

Apparently the shooting was a plot to kill the gunmans in laws. He was discharged from the airforce in 2013 for abusing his wife. He also has a child who is 3 I believe. The wife and family were religious and the terrorist had been but has recently declared himself an atheist.

 

Putting 2 and 2 together, here is my theory. The parents were trying to get their daughter out of an abusive relationship and the terrorist acted out of rage fearing loss of control 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080

Also, we really need to talk about protocol for events like this. They happen way to often not to have a plan of action for civilians when they do. At this point if we aren't going to do something through legislation, we as civilians need to know how to respond when these things happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Notice how, since we can't label the Las Vegas shooter in any way, since it just appears to be some senseless random killing, that we've almost forgotten about it just a few weeks later?

 

I mean, this mass murder helps push that one off the radar, and the next one will push this one off the radar, and the next, and the next, and the next...

 

But a guy shot 59 people to death, and we've basically forgotten about it. 

 

This guy shot 26 people to death. And when the next one happens, we'll forget about this one, too. 

 

When you can't label someone, and put them into some convenient political bucket, it's expedient to simply forget their actions ever occurred.

 

Scary, that convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dbqgolfer    173

Just read that the Air Force failed to report domestic assault conviction to FBI database. Doing so would have prevented him from legally purchasing guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490
28 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

Just read that the Air Force failed to report domestic assault conviction to FBI database. Doing so would have prevented him from legally purchasing guns.

 

Really disappointing. 

Unfortunately, given the amount of scrutiny we assign to our military when they screw up (almost nonexistent, unless they get us into an unpopular war), I'm guessing this may get a little bit of airtime tomorrow and we'll just "aww, shucks, what are you gonna do" our way through another one.

 

So many people who might still be alive if we actually did the right things. Some of them aren't even big things! This one is a good example... do the little things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080
13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I figured this would be the response. 

 

 

Tougher gun laws wouldn't have taken the citizens gun away though.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301
16 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Tougher gun laws wouldn't have taken the citizens gun away though.....

 

They do in every other first world nation.

 

JeN8DIr.png

 

RdnUaS4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

They do in every other first world nation.

 

JeN8DIr.png

 

RdnUaS4.jpg

I don't disagree with this data and would love us to be much tougher on guns, but the common sense gun regulations that are the small and only first step for America due to our gun hard on wouldn't have taken the rifle from the guy who chased down the terrorist.

 

The gun laws we would enact would be geared towards not selling guns to people like the terrorist and prohibiting certain guns and attachments that is conducive to mass death. We are a long long way from banning hunting rifles and shotguns so the resident of Sutherland Springs who shot at and chased the shooter would have had his guns whether we had tougher gun laws or not likely. The difference would have been the terrorists access to assault weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funhusker    751

I took Nebfanatic's comment to mean that the citizen that helped scare off the shooter would have still been able to have a gun and help.  

 

 

Edit:^^^Nebfanatic just further explained his post they way I understood it.

Edited by funhusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080
2 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I took Nebfanatic's comment to mean that the citizen that helped scare off the shooter would have still been able to have a gun and help.  

100%. To me, it's questionable to draw your weapon on an active shooter and try and take him down, though Texas is a circumstance I think it was completely a necessary action. But either way that whole idea of taking bystanders guns away so there would be no one to stop shooters is ludicrous. We aren't talking about gun laws on conceal and carry pistols or hunting weapons. These things also contribute to death and gun violence across America so it is an issue to be dealt with, but right now we need to focus on how can we limit and hopefully mostly eliminate mass shooting events where people are using more militarized gear. There is no place for that stuff(the military grade weapons)  among our society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Apologies. I thought by "citizen" you meant the citizen who did the shooting, not the citizen who stopped him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490

Cowards gonna cower.

 

Pathetic.

 

Also, I don't know who asked this, but bravo.

 

 

Edited by dudeguyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,066
1 hour ago, dudeguyy said:

Cowards gonna cower.

 

Pathetic.

 

Also, I don't know who asked this, but bravo.

 

 

 

I'm guessing that this is going to be the main argument.

 

My next question is then, what's your solution?  If you are going to take completely off the table, a change in gun regulation, then YOU come up with a solution.

 

The status quo isn't acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I'm guessing that this is going to be the main argument.

 

My next question is then, what's your solution?  If you are going to take completely off the table, a change in gun regulation, then YOU come up with a solution.

 

The status quo isn't acceptable.

The argument is a fallacy though. We don't want to take away the hero's hunting rifle. We aren't asking for laws to stop everyday people from purchasing a 12 gauge for trap shooting. We are asking that guns aren't sold to mentally unstable people or those who have a history if violence like this guy. We are asking that civilians aren't legally allowed to purchase or posses any type of gun or attachment that can make a gun automatic. Common sense regulations that won't effect 99% of gun owners but will make it harder on the very small percentage that wants to cause harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigRedBuster    8,066
4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

The argument is a fallacy though. We don't want to take away the hero's hunting rifle. We aren't asking for laws to stop everyday people from purchasing a 12 gauge for trap shooting. We are asking that guns aren't sold to mentally unstable people or those who have a history if violence like this guy. We are asking that civilians aren't legally allowed to purchase or posses any type of gun or attachment that can make a gun automatic. Common sense regulations that won't effect 99% of gun owners but will make it harder on the very small percentage that wants to cause harm.

Just to be clear.....I'm pretty sure it was reported that the "hero" was using an AR very similar to what the shooter was using.

 

I guess I haven't seen that it was a hunting rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080
20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Just to be clear.....I'm pretty sure it was reported that the "hero" was using an AR very similar to what the shooter was using.

 

I guess I haven't seen that it was a hunting rifle.

OK I had read that somewhere. Still most everything I said wouldn't have restricted that guy from buying an AR. But perhaps if the gun seller had been more vigilant in looking into the terrorists past he wouldn't have been sold a gun. Laws that make sure guys like this aren't allowed to slip through the cracks aren't going to affect most gun owners and if it does effect you, maybe you shouldn't own a gun. 

 

The question posed to our president was solely about extreme vetting. Trump thinks it's necessary for immigration, why not guns? 

Edited by Nebfanatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

And this is why we should not be surprised that this happened.  There is no intent for it NOT to happen.  People don't make money when guns/ammo/gun parts aren't sold.

 

 

It will happen again and again and again and again while we continue to put profit over peoples' lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

I heard on the radio the typical reaction to reasonable gun control - in various forms but it generally was stated this way :  1. Guns don't kill people , people kill people.  and   2.  If he didn't have a gun, he'd use something else because the gun isn't evil, the heart of the person is evil (or the mind of the person has a mental issue). 

While those statements are technically true, it misses the point.  The accessibility of guns make it much easier for evil and people wt mental issues to make the wrong decision and follow through wt that decision.    I'm not sure what the solution is but if the politicians keep yelling pass each other their won't be a solution.  I actually place the weight of the 'yelling' on the side of those politicians who are 100% vested wt the NRA - they do their bidding wtout question and use their talking points on and on.  I'm a believer in 2nd Amend rights but something has got to be done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490
1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

OK I had read that somewhere. Still most everything I said wouldn't have restricted that guy from buying an AR. But perhaps if the gun seller had been more vigilant in looking into the terrorists past he wouldn't have been sold a gun. Laws that make sure guys like this aren't allowed to slip through the cracks aren't going to affect most gun owners and if it does effect you, maybe you shouldn't own a gun. 

 

The question posed to our president was solely about extreme vetting. Trump thinks it's necessary for immigration, why not guns? 

 

The problem is Trump (and most everyone in the GOP I've seen argue against gun control) are arguing with a strawman.

 

Trump is arguing that by cracking down on guns, we're somehow going to take guns away from the good guys (the hero in this story) but NOT the bad guy (the shooter). He seems to be arguing against a complete gun ban in which the bad guys somehow still find guns (which is a popular talking point for pro-gun folks).

 

The problem is no one I know is arguing that. If they are, they certainly aren't in the mainstream. Most folks are just crying out to do something! Anything we do has to be better than this. Hell, if we even followed the laws on the books (and the Air Force reported this guy's domestic abuse history), Sunderland Springs may not have happened.

 

But Trump and others in his party insist on arguing against an argument no one is making, because it serves their agenda to argue absolutes & make everything black & white. Nuance is hard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

Cowards gonna cower.

 

Pathetic.

 

Also, I don't know who asked this, but bravo.

 

 

'Extreme vetting' is pretty vague but I'd like to think it would have turned up the domestic assault conviction that the AF neglected to report. It seems like a pretty reasonable question to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080
10 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

The problem is Trump (and most everyone in the GOP I've seen argue against gun control) are arguing with a strawman.

 

Trump is arguing that by cracking down on guns, we're somehow going to take guns away from the good guys (the hero in this story) but NOT the bad guy (the shooter). He seems to be arguing against a complete gun ban in which the bad guys somehow still find guns (which is a popular talking point for pro-gun folks).

 

The problem is no one I know is arguing that. If they are, they certainly aren't in the mainstream. Most folks are just crying out to do something! Anything we do has to be better than this. Hell, if we even followed the laws on the books (and the Air Force reported this guy's domestic abuse history), Sunderland Springs may not have happened.

 

But Trump and others in his party insist on arguing against an argument no one is making, because it serves their agenda to argue absolutes & make everything black & white. Nuance is hard. 

You hit it right on the nose. Great post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BIG ERN    1,108

If someone was able to take an automatic weapon into an elementary school and kill innocent children....you think they care about this? Anyone who has stupid dumbass comments like "Lets take away large vehicles since they can kill people too." I literally would love to throw you off a bridge. Anyone with common sense knows that trying to crack down on guns isn't an easy solution, but to keep dismissing every shooting because you like to shoot targets in your backyard....no one cares.

America has almost double the guns as the next country per capita. We also spend almost triple the amount on our military than the next country. I wonder if those two issues have anything to do with why America has the vast majority of these events? Yes 

 

Image result for us military spending by country

Edited by BIG ERN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
commando    1,626

what is more important?   lives of innocent american citizens or corporate profits?   our military doesn't buy enough guns to keep the gun makers happy so people must die to feed the beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

Via this Newsmax article, Fox was giving cover to the NRA today on this.   Below is NRA's position per their spokesperson.

 

Below that Paul Ryan's solution - Enforce the laws on the book.  Yes needful - I agree. But more has to be done.

 

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/nra-enforcement-gun-laws-solve/2017/11/07/id/824667/

 

The solution to preventing massacres where firearms are used, such as the one in the Texas church on Sunday, is not more gun control legislation, but to properly enforce the laws that are already on the books, NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch told "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday.

"The NRA has fought for 20 years to make sure that people who are adjudicated mentally unfit, that these records are added to the system," Loesch said. "Then we keep seeing these occurrences that are taking place and people who are able to purchase a firearm, because of human error or because they fell through the system."

She said that 38 states report fewer than 80 percent of felony convictions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which means there are some 7 million felony convictions that go unreported.

"This is why this law needs to be enforced. But politicians have to call for those records to be submitted," Loesch said.

She also noted that the Texas church shooter Devin Kelley reportedly lied on Federal Form 4473, which those who want to buy a gun must complete. He reportedly checked a box that he had not been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

"In 2010, you had 80,000 prohibited possessors that tried to purchase a firearm through their 4473. That's an actionable offense. And yet, guess how many of those were prosecuted? 44," Loesch said. "This has to change and politicians have to call for it, especially the ones calling for gun control today."

 

Loesch also pointed out that it is important to note that there were good people with guns in the area of the church who took action and prevented the tragedy from being even worse than it was.

She said this was another indication that "when evil is engaged by good, evil flees," which is why it is crucial that law-abiding citizens have the right to carry weapons.

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/359107-ryan-enforcing-existing-laws-would-have-prevented-texas-massacre

 

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Tuesday that enforcing existing laws would have prevented the mass shooting at a church in rural Texas that left more than two dozen people dead over the weekend.

“How about enforcing the laws we’ve got on the books? This man should not have gotten a gun. You know why? Because he was a domestic abuser,” Ryan replied when a reporter from The Hill asked what other ideas the Speaker had to stop such mass shootings.

“We have laws on the books that says if you are a domestic abuser, you are not supposed to own a gun. He was a domestic abuser,” Ryan continued. “That’s why we’ve got all these questions with the Air Force right now. … How did this slip through the cracks? How is it that this person who was convicted of domestic abuse by the Air Force, how did he get through the system and get a gun? Because the laws we have right now on the books say a person like this should not have gotten a gun. … This man should not have had a gun in the first place.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
commando    1,626

thank god we can ban hand grenades, flamethrowers and bazookas.   we have enough common sense to ban those military grade weapons anyway.  i still think bump stocks, large capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets should also be banned.   as far as i know hunters are only allowed to kill 1 deer at a time and those deer rarely if ever are wearing body armor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read a very scary account about the shooting in California this week.  I guess this happened as kids were getting to school and they were milling about before the start.  Secretary heard the first gun shots and rushed all the kids inside with the last kids getting in shortly before the gunman reached the school.  That's a frightening what if that might have matched or most likely surpassed Las Vegas and had been 1000% worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funhusker    751

He apparently "built" his guns that he used for this rampage.  I'm curious to know exactly what that means.  For now, people are just going to write this off as "see, he wasn't allowed to have guns and he still pulled it off!!!!!" and it will just get thrown on the stack with the rest of them....

Edited by funhusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sho    104
4 hours ago, funhusker said:

He apparently "built" his guns that he used for this rampage.  I'm curious to know exactly what that means.  For now, people are just going to write this off as "see, he wasn't allowed to have guns and he still pulled it off!!!!!" and it will just get thrown on the stack with the rest of them....

 

I have an acquaintance who builds AK47s.  Has about 25 of them he's built.   You can go on-line and order all the replacement parts you need and assemble it yourself.   If you learn how to take apart and assemble a weapon, you can find every piece you need on-line and order it.  And scary enough, if you order these, you can probably order and assemble without having to have a gun license to buy one.  Anyone with a credit card, a mailing address and access to the internet could build one from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nebfanatic    1,080
48 minutes ago, sho said:

 

I have an acquaintance who builds AK47s.  Has about 25 of them he's built.   You can go on-line and order all the replacement parts you need and assemble it yourself.   If you learn how to take apart and assemble a weapon, you can find every piece you need on-line and order it.  And scary enough, if you order these, you can probably order and assemble without having to have a gun license to buy one.  Anyone with a credit card, a mailing address and access to the internet could build one from scratch.

While it's a fine line I don't see why some legislation couldn't be brought forth to limit this type of practice if that is the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
funhusker    751
1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

While it's a fine line I don't see why some legislation couldn't be brought forth to limit this type of practice if that is the case. 

Kind of what I was thinking.  If these are existing parts and pieces of guns, I don't see why they wouldn't fall under the same type of background check.  Now, if he was machining and molding parts in his basement, that would be a totally different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×